ArticleJournal of neurosurgery. Case lessons2022
Remote cerebellar hemorrhage after supratentorial craniotomy: illustrative cases.
Article in Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-hemorrhagic cerebellar contrast enhancement on intraoperative MRI during a supratentorial glioma resection: Concerning finding of no significance.Radiology case reports · 2024Article
- Specific Reversal Agents for Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Acute Stroke.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRemote cerebellar hemorrhage (RCH) is an extremely rare and potentially fatal complication after supratentorial craniotomy. However, the exact pathophysiological mechanism of RCH remains unclear, so clinicians often lack clinical experience in prevention, early diagnosis, and standardized treatment. OBSERVATIONS: The authors retrospectively analyzed data of patients who underwent surgery for supratentorial lesions at their center between 2012 and 2021. They identified 4 patients who developed RCH among 4,075 patients who underwent supratentorial craniotomy. All 4 patients were male, with an average age of 57.5 years. One RCH occurred after tumor resection, and the other 3 occurred after aneurysm clipping. One patient was asymptomatic and received conservative treatment with a favorable outcome. The remaining 3 patients underwent lateral ventricular drainage and/or suboccipital decompression; 2 died, and 1 recovered well. LESSONS: The authors believe that RCH should be considered as a multifactorial cause, and massive cerebrospinal fluid loss plays a key role in the development and progression of RCH. Asymptomatic RCH can be treated conservatively. However, in the case of conscious disturbance, hydrocephalus, and brain stem compression, surgery should be performed immediately. Early detection and individualized treatment would be helpful to avoid potentially fatal outcomes caused by RCH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.